Plutarch’s Lives

Comparison of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus with Agis and Cleomenes

Translated by John Dryden
and
Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough

Having given an account severally of
these persons, it remains only that we should take a view of them in
comparison with one another.

As for the Gracchi, the greatest detractors and their worst enemies
could not but allow, that they had a genius to virtue beyond all other
Romans, which was improved also by a generous education. Agis and
Cleomenes may be supposed to have had stronger natural gifts, since,
though they wanted all the advantages of good education, and were bred
up in those very customs, manners, and habits of living, which had for
a long time corrupted others, yet they were public examples of
temperance and frugality. Besides, the Gracchi, happening to live when
Rome had her greatest repute for honor and virtuous actions, might
justly have been ashamed, if they had not also left to the next
generation the noble inheritance of the virtues of their ancestors.
Whereas the other two had parents of different morals; and though they
found their country in a sinking condition, and debauched, yet that did
not quench their forward zeal to what was just and honorable.

The integrity of the two Romans, and their superiority to
money, was chiefly remarkable in this; that in office and the
administration of public affairs, they kept themselves from the
imputation of unjust gain; whereas Agis might justly be offended, if he
had only that mean commendation given him, that he took nothing
wrongfully from any man, seeing he distributed his own fortunes, which,
in ready money only, amounted to the value of six hundred talents,
amongst his fellow-citizens. Extortion would have appeared a crime of a
strange nature to him, who esteemed it a piece of covetousness to
possess, though never so justly gotten, greater riches than his
neighbors.

Their political actions, also, and the state revolutions they
attempted, were very different in magnitude. The chief things in
general that the two Romans commonly aimed at, were the settlement of
cities and mending of highways; and, in particular, the boldest design
which Tiberius is famed for, was the recovery of the public lands; and
Caius gained his greatest reputation by the addition, for the exercise
of judicial powers, of three hundred of the order of knights to the
same number of senators. Whereas the alteration which Agis and
Cleomenes made, was in a quite different kind. They did not set about
removing partial evils and curing petty incidents of disease, which
would have been (as Plato says), like cutting off one of the Hydra’s
heads, the very means to increase the number; but they instituted a
thorough reformation, such as would free the country at once from all
its grievances, or rather, to speak more truly, they reversed that
former change which had been the cause of all their calamities, and so
restored their city to its ancient state.

However, this must be confessed in the behalf of the Gracchi,
that their undertakings were always opposed by men of the greatest
influence. On the other side, those things which were first attempted
by Agis, and afterwards consummated by Cleomenes, were supported by the
great and glorious precedent of those ancient laws concerning frugality
and leveling which they had themselves received upon the authority of
Lycurgus, and he had instituted on that of Apollo. It is also further
observable, that from the actions of the Gracchi, Rome received no
additions to her former greatness; whereas, under the conduct of
Cleomenes, Greece presently saw Sparta exert her sovereign power over
all Peloponnesus, and contest the supreme command with the most
powerful princes of the time; success in which would have freed Greece
from Illyrian and Gaulish violence, and placed her once again under the
orderly rule of the sons of Hercules.

From the circumstances of their deaths, also, we may infer some
difference in the quality of their courage. The Gracchi, fighting with
their fellow-citizens, were both slain, as they endeavored to make
their escape; Agis willingly submitted to his fate, rather than any
citizen should be in danger of his life. Cleomenes, being shamefully
and unjustly treated, made an effort toward revenge, but failing of
that, generously fell by his own hand.

On the other side it must be said, that Agis never did a great
action worthy a commander, being prevented by an untimely death. And as
for those heroic actions of Cleomenes, we may justly compare with them
that of Tiberius, when he was the first who attempted to scale the
walls of Carthage, which was no mean exploit. We may add the peace
which he concluded with the Numantines, by which he saved the lives of
twenty thousand Romans, who otherwise had certainly been cut off. And
Caius, not only at home, but in war in Sardinia, displayed
distinguished courage. So that their early actions were no small
argument, that afterwards they might have rivaled the best of the Roman
commanders, if they had not died so young.

In civil life, Agis showed a lack of determination; he let
himself be baffled by the craft of Agesilaus; disappointed the
expectations of the citizens as to the division of the lands, and
generally left all the designs which he had deliberately formed and
publicly announced, unperformed and unfulfilled, through a young man’s
want of resolution. Cleomenes, on the other hand, proceeded to effect
the revolution with only too much boldness and violence, and unjustly
slew the Ephors, whom he might, by superiority in arms, have gained
over to his party, or else might easily have banished, as he did
several others of the city. For to use the knife, unless in the
extremest necessity, is neither good surgery nor wise policy, but in
both cases mere unskillfulness; and in the latter, unjust as well as
unfeeling. Of the Gracchi, neither the one nor the other was the first
to shed the blood of his fellow-citizens; and Caius is reported to have
avoided all manner of resistance, even when his life was aimed at,
showing himself always valiant against a foreign enemy, but wholly
inactive in a sedition. This was the reason that he went from his own
house unarmed, and withdrew when the battle began, and in all respects
showed himself anxious rather not to do any harm to others, than not to
suffer any himself. Even the very flight of the Gracchi must not be
looked upon as an argument of their mean spirit, but an honorable
retreat from endangering of others. For if they had stayed, they must
either have yielded to those who assailed them, or else have fought
them in their own defense.

The greatest crime that can be laid to Tiberius’s charge, was
the deposing of his fellow tribune, and seeking afterwards a second
tribuneship for himself. As for the death of Antyllius, it is falsely
and unjustly attributed to Caius, for he was slain unknown to him, and
much to his grief. On the contrary, Cleomenes (not to mention the
murder of the Ephors) set all the slaves at liberty, and governed by
himself alone in reality, having a partner only for show; having made
choice of his brother Euclidas, who was one of the same family. He
prevailed upon Archidamus, who was the right heir to the kingdom of the
other line, to venture to return home from Messene; but after his being
slain, by not doing anything to revenge his death, confirmed the
suspicion that he was privy to it himself. Lycurgus, whose example he
professed to imitate, after he had voluntarily settled his kingdom upon
Charillus, his brother’s son, fearing lest, if the youth should chance
to die by accident, he might be suspected for it, traveled a long time,
and would not return again to Sparta until Charillus had a son, and an
heir to his kingdom. But we have indeed no other Grecian who is worthy
to be compared with Lycurgus, and it is clear enough that in the public
measures of Cleomenes various acts of considerable audacity and
lawlessness may be found.

Those, therefore, who incline to blame their characters, may
observe, that the two Grecians were disturbers even from their youth,
lovers of contest, and aspirants to despotic power; that Tiberius and
Caius by nature had an excessive desire after glory and honors. Beyond
this, their enemies could find nothing to bring against them; but as
soon as the contention began with their adversaries, their heat and
passions would so far prevail beyond their natural temper, that by
them, as by ill winds, they were driven afterwards to all their rash
undertakings. What could be more just and honorable than their first
design, had not the power and the faction of the rich, by endeavoring
to abrogate that law, engaged them both in those fatal quarrels, the
one, for his own preservation, the other, to revenge his brother’s
death, who was murdered without any law or justice?

From the account, therefore, which has been given, you yourself
may perceive the difference; which if it were to be pronounced of every
one singly, I should affirm Tiberius to have excelled them all in
virtue; that young Agis had been guilty of the fewest misdeeds; and
that in action and boldness Caius came far short of Cleomenes.